December 9, 2011

But with high unemployment, economic stagnation and unprecedented deficits, what else can Obama say?

He can’t run on stewardship. He can’t run on policy. His signature initiatives — the stimulus, Obamacare and the failed cap-and-trade — will go unmentioned in his campaign ads. Indeed, they will be the stuff of Republican ads.

To some extent it worked for TR, and I quote “Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth whosacrifice everything to getting wealth. There is not inthe world a more ignoble character than the meremoney-getting American, insensible to every duty,regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basestuses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks and wreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead a life of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter....."

As I've said, all the Republican Candidate has to say is Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? Is the Country?

During the debates, before answering any question, just say I want the American People to know that I, like them, am in a worse financial position now than I was in 4 years ago when Obama became President. And now, to answer the question...

To some extent it worked for TR, and I quote “Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth whosacrifice everything to getting wealth. There is not inthe world a more ignoble character than the meremoney-getting American, insensible to every duty,regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basestuses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks and wreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead a life of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter....."

"This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chavez."

This is a slim-chance sort of possibility, but given the stakes of the game, I would hope they are gaming as many alternatives as possible.

The GOP needs to watch out for a rope-a-dope here. The class warfare thing just seems a little too easy, a little to much catering to the two-dimensional liberal/socialist meme, for comfort's sake.

Assume you're the administration. You start harping on the class warfare thing, by drips and drops at first (small jet owners, etc) and then go full-metal Roosevelt just before the IA caucuses. You get the GOP to start responding and planning to that meme, believing it to be your strategy for the reasons Krauthammer outlines.

What are the downsides of combating that message from the POTUS campaign? How far can you go down that dark alley and what potential "Gotchas" exist to spin heads further down the road to Nov 4th?

I suppose my point is along the lines of "No...don't do that. That's just what they WANT us to do."

Ann, you are ginning up so much anti-Obama sentiment that if you do vote for Obama next year, the collective force of many of our heads exploding could send the earth spinning uncontrollably out of its orbit.

Meanwhile one of the top two or three Dem politicians over the last six years has stolen 1.2 billion dollars in trust account deposits while running a credit swaps scam that only the top 1% of the 1% ever touch. And he refuses to make good the lost money from his own fortune that could pay for it.

Complete delusion sometimes works for a season. I pray some one speaks the truth about Obama soon.

"He can’t run on stewardship. He can’t run on policy. His signature initiatives — the stimulus, Obamacare and the failed cap-and-trade — will go unmentioned in his campaign ads. Indeed, they will be the stuff of Republican ads.

What’s left? Class resentment. Got a better idea?"

Krauthammer, as usual, adroitly deconstructs our failed president. His skill lies in explaining what is so completely obvious, yet so difficult for too many to understand.

That Obama would, reflexively, pursue policies doomed to failure was transparent in '08. There was no scintilla of evidence that a man of the academic Left bereft of any meaningful real world experience ("community organizer" is as much a bullshit "job" as any job could possibly be...) would do anything Andy Stern and his monkeys in the SEIU boardroom wouldn't do themselves, if only they could.

Democrats, of course, laboring under the misimpression that wealth is created by using the state's police powers to steal it from productive classes and give it to unproductive classes (in exchange for votes), wanted exactly what Obama offered. Their votes for Obama can be excused on grounds of their being irretrievably stupid.

Other voters, knowing better, should be ashamed of themselves. The question is, did they learn anything?

"Ann, you are ginning up so much anti-Obama sentiment that if you do vote for Obama next year, the collective force of many of our heads exploding could send the earth spinning uncontrollably out of its orbit."

Ha! Does anyone really think Ann is going to vote for Romney or Gingrich?

On what grounds? Nasty columns about Obama? There's been no "Anyone but Obama" declaration.

Misdirection plays are wonderfully effective in football...they work well in politics too.

As usual, Krauthammer is full of shit, ("massive entitlements" etc.), but then, so is Obama.

Washington politicos en masse are the paid lackeys of the financial elites, so any greed by the wealthy that is starving the rest of us is facilitated by the policies enacted in Washington that provides the means by which private greed can be satisfied by public theft.

Additionally, Obama may be and should be faulted for not having pursued criminal investigations of the widespread fraud committed by financial institutions over recent years that have led to the economic collapse.

Of the two, Krauthammer is not a hypocrite...he has always stood foursquare for the prerogatives of the wealthy and powerful; Obama is a hypocrite for having acted on behalf of the wealthy and powerful throughout his administration, while now mouthing "for the people" rhetoric simply in order to garner votes.

The president of all Americans claimed in his Kansas speech that there were financial institutions that had business models based on illegality. If he knows of banks with such overtly illegal business practices,business models, he should inform the SEC and his crack AG. He, of course, does not know of any business anywhere in the U.S. that has a business model based on illegal activities. This ugly class warfare is making it clear that the president wants, needs, people to believe that the rich only get that way by stealing from the poor or otherwise "taking" something that otherwise would go to the poor or the "middle class."

RV: TR's populism was the cornerstone of the failure of his third party. Notwithstanding some evidence that suggests otherwise the American people are not completely stupid. Most are aspirational, hard working and do not like to be called crooks for doing well. Most pay their taxes and think that doing so is "fair." We are nearing the point of no return, when those voters who pay no Federal tax outnumber those who do. Those who pay no tax will always vote to raise the taxes on those who do and will vote for those who argue for more taxes.

Do not think that come the revolution the leaders will be pulled from the ranks, comrades. you will be working for the one percent. And they will be very very pissed.

""Meanwhile one of the top two or three Dem politicians over the last six years has stolen 1.2 billion dollars in trust account deposits while running a credit swaps scam that only the top 1% of the 1% ever touch."

There is not in the world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensible to every duty, regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basest uses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks and wreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead a life of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter....."

garage mahal said...About 3 million seniors who hit the donut hole saved an average of $569 last year from ObamaKKKare. I wonder how Kraphammer will have to lie about that?

12/9/11 9:12 AM

Hmm $569 x 3m = roughly the amount stolen by DEMOCRAT senator, governor and all around hack Corzine. Now just get Corzine to donate the money he stole to the government and the oldsters get their savings without Obozocare.

It takes a great mental genius to equate the putative saving of $1.7b with the brilliance of running a $2t deficit.

Additionally, Obama may be and should be faulted for not having pursued criminal investigations of the widespread fraud committed by financial institutions over recent years that have led to the economic collapse.

Yes, it would've been real justice to see the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac perp-walked through a gauntlet of TV cameras with their suitcoats over their handcuffs. And a nice censure of Barney Frank would've been well-deserved, too.

But that's not what you meant, is it, Cook. Do you really think Obama (or Holder, more specifically) was going to bring charges against Lloyd Blankfein et al? Whose party do you think these Wall Street frauds contribute to?

garage mahal said: "About 3 million seniors who hit the donut hole saved an average of $569 last year from ObamaKKKare.

This is an interesting comment. GM deploys specificity, numbers, and sarcasm.

The rhetoric is strong with this one. But the 15.7 million 18- to 35-year-old middle-class workers who face only a 42% likelihood of re-employment seventeen weeks after being laid off would beg to request a 7.5% tax cut that could boost economic growth by 0.14%. That may sound small, but it would add roughly a trillion dollars in middle-class wealth over the next ten years. And the DemoKKKratic Party opposes it!

You don't even know where the savings came from, do you? No fucking idea. Fiscally illiterate is right.

As cyncial as I've become about your sad descent from reasonableness into flailing, "close-your-eyes-stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears-and-shout-LALALALALA-this-isn't-happening" hackery, I still can't believe you're serious when you amke this statement. Can you? Are you that far gone, Garage?

"... $569 is less than $50 a month. Somehow I doubt any of those seniors are going to vote for Barry because of it..."

Well if you're a liberal you've been conditioned to believe the nations seniors subsist on cat food and have to decide between cutting pills in half or paying the rent. So $50 is all that stands between them and the abyss.

"You don't even know where the savings came from, do you? No fucking idea. Fiscally illiterate is right."

Stop projecting your idiocy. Your Dali-Obama sent checks for $250 to each Medicare enrollee to cover the cost of the "doughnut hole." Those checks, per your president's $1.5 Trillion annual deficit, are funded by debt.

Throughout history, social welfare schemes of government have been propounded, not by the poor, but by the privileged sons and daughters of the wealthy.

As for the payroll tax "holiday," I think it is lunacy in the current situation, when the SS already has to pay out more than it is taking in, and they already have to borrow to make up the shortfall.My idea for creating an incentive to reform the Social Security System is to pass a statute requiring the current payments to be paid for by the concurrent income. That might have some chance of making the Congress critters pay some attention to the faults in the system.

It is appalling that Obama goes on the stump railing against those dastardly Republicans whose inaction will cause "taxes to go up for ordinary Americans" if they do not agree to extend "the payroll tax cut" at the same time as he through the other side of his mouth rails against the same dastardly Republicans for claiming that letting "the Bush tax cuts" expire constitutes a tax increase.

Logic and consistency has never been a characteristic of "the intellectual elite.!"

Well there were some reasons for President Obama to make that speech where he did: Osawatomie,KS.There was, of course the John Brown connection and the T.R. connection, but with a "thumb in our eyes" there was also the Weather Underground connection:"Osawatomie" was the name of the Weather Underground's magazine in 1975 when Billy Ayers started to realize that bombs might not be the way to go.Did Obama use "Osawatomie" for that sort of wink and nod to his casual acquaintence from the neighborhoood?See: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=70

Well there were some reasons for President Obama to make that speech where he did: Osawatomie,KS.There was, of course the John Brown connection and the T.R. connection, but with a "thumb in our eyes" there was also the Weather Underground connection:"Osawatomie" was the name of the Weather Underground's magazine in 1975 when Billy Ayers started to realize that bombs might not be the way to go.Did Obama use "Osawatomie" for that sort of wink and nod to his casual acquaintence from the neighborhoood?See: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=70

"As for the payroll tax "holiday," I think it is lunacy in the current situation, when the SS already has to pay out more than it is taking in, and they already have to borrow to make up the shortfall."

Nah, the SS Administration just sells some of its bonds in the lockbox to the Treasury and presto; money appears.

A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581. Medicare also picked up more of the cost of generic drugs, saving an additional $22.

Garage's almost-valid point is that the donut hole fix is not paid for by government expenditure but through price controls negotiated with the pharma companies. What he fails to realize, is that these costs are then just spread to other customers.

In structuring the bill as such, the Dems calculated a win-win for themselves; a program popular with oldsters that also drives up private health care and insurance costs, so that more people can be encouraged or driven to government insurance.

"A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581. Medicare also picked up more of the cost of generic drugs, saving an additional $22.

So, basically, everyone here had it wrong. Not shocking."

Wrong again, as usual.

The rebate checks, funded by debt, were sent.

The price capping by law, as noted by other commenters, results in cost-shifting. Only the fiscally and economically illiterate do not know that price caps in one market result in price increases in another market that does not have those price caps.

One of the longest standing hallmarks of the idiot Democrats is that somehow, law can make something cost less, or be cost free. Economics informs us that all the law can do is shift costs elsewhere; in this case, to the seniors' children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who will not only have to pay off the debt that funded the $250 per enrollee rebate checks, but also pay a higher cost on prescription meds, thanks to our idiot president, idiot Democrats, and the idiot voters who are wedded to the idiot notion that somehow, law can make expensive things cheaper.

Shorter political economy lesson for idiots: "Savings for one constituency created by law increase costs for other constituencies not covered by the law; this is known by promoters as "economic justice;" it is known by all others as "vote buying.""

I said at the time it was a dumb idea. Not on a sane planet, where it provided catastrpohic insurance coverage but also expected seniors to pay some of their own bills, but on Planet Garage where they'd be pissing and moaning about the unfairness of it all.

A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581. Medicare also picked up more of the cost of generic drugs, saving an additional $22.

So, basically, everyone here had it wrong. Not shocking.

Actually no. Once again, Garage only looks at part of the equation.

Just why, Garage, did that 50% "discount" cost us, Garage? Are you aware of the $80mm cap? And the other "benefits" coming to the pharma companies on the cost side?

I said at the time it was a dumb idea. Not on a sane planet, where it provided catastrpohic insurance coverage but also expected seniors to pay some of their own bills, but on Planet Garage where they'd be pissing and moaning about the unfairness of it all.

You realize seniors in the donut hole, are by definition, "paying some of their own bills".

And AARP adds that it's changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.

As is his solution, that old perennial: selective abolition of the Bush tax cuts. As if all that ails us, all that keeps the economy from humming and the middle class from advancing, is a 4.6-point hike in marginal tax rates for the rich.

Snouthammer WaPo's official neo con knows as much about history as he does economics --ie, null set. Tax rates are at record lows. BushCo's slash of the capital gains rate to 15% or so itself has led to a great reduction of govt. revenues. The tax rates are lower than they were under Reagan's first term.

Of course most Ma and Pa Methcooks think a tax raise on the wealthy means a tax raise on them, when it doesn't. So, act really pissed at tax increases on the millionaires, and yr magically in the yacht club! In reality yr haven't made it to the evinrude club.

The American populace has no great love for hedge fund managers, nor any wish to see them spared any tax burden. But Obama is using some sleight of hand here. Hedge fund managers are more often than not Democrats. See Soros and Corzine. See the children of Biden and Clinton who went to work for hedge funds. I question crooked faro dealers who preach about the evils of gamblings..... In America, someone is always making more money than they deserve, and there's no reason to believe that there are not lots of Democrats in that class. Beyond this, there is the simple fact, as Krauthammer indicates, that a higher rate of taxation on such people will do very little to actually reduce the national debt. I think Obama is arguing in bad faith.....I would like to see an excise tax placed upon all ballplayers who bat 50 pts below their lifetime average after signing a lucrative ten year deal. Ditto for overpaid actors who make schlocky movies. Double ditto squared for politicians whose family wealth has increased exponentially during their term of office. But historically the government, even when run by such an enlightened bureaucrat as Obama, has done a much worse job than the market in deciding who should prosper and who should wither.

I find this a sad statement from conservatives who feel that it is a burden for the young to help support the elderly in a society-- it represents the take it now greed of our society. As far as increased medical costs, actually the tend is moving down with new generic drugs and competition form India and China-- "seniors' children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who will not only have to pay off the debt that funded the $250 per enrollee rebate checks, but also pay a higher cost on prescription meds, thanks to our idiot president, idiot Democrats, and the idiot voters who are wedded to the idiot notion that somehow, law can make expensive things cheaper".

I'm led to believe by the oldest members of my and my wife's extended families that it was quite normal for families to house an aging mother or father. The huge retirement home industry we have now simply didn't exist, but, then again, neither did any of the Great Society programs. Family cared for it's own because that's what people had to do.

so any greed by the wealthy that is starving the rest of us is facilitated by the policies enacted in Washington Cook accidently stumbled into the truth here. The unconnected greedy bastards have to sell us things we want at a price we're willing to pay while competing with all the other greedy bastards for our money. The connected GB can force us to cough up our money or get a subsidy or tax write-off.

TR made his speech while running on the Bull Moose Party ticket, thereby handing the election over to Woodrow Wilson. Obama exhibits the same kind of obtuse narcissism but without the character of TR to pull it off.

'Community organizing' is deconstruction. So, apparently, is what he meant by his 'change' meme. The systematic deconstruction of America so a european-style statist utopia could be erected in his honor.

This 'speech' was community organizing claptrap on steroids. This man is an embarrassment!!!

I was talking to a good friend and asked her who she would want in charge of her lifelong payroll tax deuctions for medicare and social security. Her multiple choice selections were:A - A bankB- Wall street C- her mattressD- Uncle Sam

Reagan's lowest rates like around 28% or so20% before 1987. They traded lower regular income rates for a higher cap gain rate. Then GHWB and Clinton raised the top regular rates back to where they'd been.

There's still "Vote for me or you're a racist."To which the response is : if you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove that you’re not a racist, then you need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove that you’re not an idiot.

And here is the President Ann, Garage, RV, J and all the rest voted for today talking economics:

"However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."

Isn't that lovely?

The President of the United States actually believes unemployment "insurance" creates jobs.

Hoosier Daddy said... Actually a millionaire tax suits me fine. Most hit by it would be overpaid athletes and leftist Hollywood.

Maybe a surtax on BMW and Audi owners too.

12/9/11 11:14 AM

My wife has an Audi so lay off on those. My ex has a BMW, so lets tax the hell out of BMW owners and while you are at it lets tax @ 90% all registered democrats and other leftist party registered voters every dollar above minimum wage.

Hoosier Daddy said... Actually a millionaire tax suits me fine. Most hit by it would be overpaid athletes and leftist Hollywood.

Maybe a surtax on BMW and Audi owners too.

12/9/11 11:14 AM

My wife has an Audi so lay off on those. My ex has a BMW, so lets tax the hell out of BMW owners and while you are at it lets tax @ 90% all registered democrats and other leftist party registered voters every dollar above minimum wage.

My spidey sense tells me that the husbands of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters did not amass their fortunes strictly by business acumen.....The Democrat business model is selling access to government. The Republicans own a few franchises, of course, but it's mostly staffed and managed by Democrats. Any increase in government power gives financial leverage to those with access to that power. It's a fine business. Those people like Bill Clinton who claim that they want to pay more taxes on their income are feeding you a load. Clinton made one hundred million dollars in his first eight years after leaving office. Democrats believe that the bulk of this came from making paid speeches. And they think Mormons are foolish for wearing funny underwear. When Bill claims he wants to pay higher taxes, he is like the Exxon chairman who claims that, after all, when gas prices go up, he has to pay more at the pump.....Most people want to get rich and are a little sheepish about flaunting this desire. God bless the Democrats who not only relentless pursue enrichment but claim that this pursuit is ennobling.

" garage mahal said... About 3 million seniors who hit the donut hole saved an average of $569 last year from ObamaKKKare. I wonder how Kraphammer will have to lie about that?

12/9/11 9:12 AM"

It's sad how far leftists have fallen. Here we have one pointing out that we gain virtually nothing in exchange for increasing unemployment by two plus points, risking a financial meltdown far worse than 2008, and passing the bill to future generations. But that's not the sad part. What's sad is he thinks he's that by pointing out we get virtually nothing in exchange he's actually helping his side!

"You liars, we don't get nothing in exchange for bankrupting the country. We get pennies on the dollar!".

Does anybody listens to what Obama says? Except talking heads, that is?

... and Stock Exchange. I don't think they actually listen either. It seems stocks fall automatically at the moment Obama opens his mouth, regardless of what he says, or even before - at the moment his speech is announced.

One of the ways you can tell the left is nuts is to simply listen to them reach conclusions. To a Democrat or leftist everything is about money. Absolutely everything. And their prime goal is getting control of everyone's. But somehow they're not greedy, everyone else is?

Look at garage: forcing people to do what someone else wants is ok, because someone got a few bucks out of it. But he's not greedy. Everyone else is.

"Look at garage: forcing people to do what someone else wants is ok, because someone got a few bucks out of it. But he's not greedy. Everyone else is.

They're nuts."

+1

Because, to a liberal, it's greedy for you to want to keep the fruits of your own labor, but not greedy for them to elect politicians take the fruits of your labor to buy things for other people they did not earn.

Taxing all registered democrats at 90% is a good start. Maybe if we could force people, by congressional district, to pay all the costs of whatever crap their representative votes for, we'd elect some fiscal conservatives.